Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 29173920 and thus eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS; the departmental demand for differential customs duty of Rs. 56,71,510 with interest was held unsustainable. The Tribunal found no proven mis-declaration of goods and accordingly quashed the penalties levied on the Appellant. It held that post-Budget classification under the revised tariff entry did not deprive the Appellant of the notification benefit where identical goods were imported from the same supplier before and after the Budget, and ordered relief in favour of the Appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 29173920 and thus eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS; the departmental demand for differential customs duty of Rs. 56,71,510 with interest was held unsustainable. The Tribunal found no proven mis-declaration of goods and accordingly quashed the penalties levied on the Appellant. It held that post-Budget classification under the revised tariff entry did not deprive the Appellant of the notification benefit where identical goods were imported from the same supplier before and after the Budget, and ordered relief in favour of the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.